4.1 Article

Quality improvements in prostate radiotherapy: Outcomes and impact of comprehensive quality assurance during the TROG 03.04 RADAR' trial

Journal

JOURNAL OF MEDICAL IMAGING AND RADIATION ONCOLOGY
Volume 57, Issue 2, Pages 247-257

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/1754-9485.12025

Keywords

clinical trial; prostate cancer; quality assurance; radiotherapy

Funding

  1. Australian government
  2. New Zealand government
  3. Cancer Australia
  4. Diagnostics and Technology Branch of the Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing [501106]
  5. National Health and Medical Research Council [300705, 455521, 1006447]
  6. Hunter Medical Research Institute
  7. Health Research Council (New Zealand)
  8. University of Newcastle
  9. Calvary Mater Newcastle
  10. Abbott Laboratories
  11. Novartis Pharmaceuticals
  12. Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital
  13. 'Elvis' study team
  14. contour audit team

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Introduction The Trans-Tasman Radiation Oncology Group 03.04 Randomised Androgen Deprivation and Radiotherapy' multicentre prostate cancer trial examined the optimal duration of androgen deprivation in combination with dose-escalated radiotherapy. Rigorous quality assurance (QA) processes were undertaken to ensure the validity and reliability of the radiation therapy treatment plan data. Method QA processes included a planning benchmarking exercise and a periodic audit of target and normal tissue delineation. Centralised electronic review of digital plan data for external-beam radiotherapy was undertaken to detect protocol variations. The impact of clinical factors and feedback to submitting centres during the trial on variation rates was investigated. Results Twenty-three centres across Australia and New Zealand recruited 1071 participants to the trial. Treatment plans for 754 participants receiving external-beam treatment alone were reviewed. From these, 1185 minor and 86 major variations were identified, leading to feedback to treating centres to reduce variations for subsequent patients' treatment and plans, suggesting improvement in treatment quality through these QA programs. Participant anatomical factors (delineated clinical target volume and rectal volume) and treatment planning factors (beam energy, beam definition and patient position orientation) were found to significantly impact variation rates. The dummy run demonstrated disagreement in identification of the base of the prostate and the superior extent of the rectum. Feedback from the periodic audit led to a change of practice at five contributing centres. Conclusion The application of a suite of complementary QA activities allows the quality of trial data to be optimised and quantified, and can provide a catalyst for reforming treatment practices.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available